Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

NeoCons Need To Be Denied A Seat At The Table

Part of removing the President from office will come the option to remove the NeoCons from the public debate.

Rather than accept responsibility for their disasters, they continue to take issues of the table and point to the future. This approach does not assign accountability, but permits the NeoCons to claim a seat at the table they are not entitled.

* * *

One common NeoCon argument has been to refuse to confront the issues 2001-2006, arguing those are in the past, and we have to confront what we have in Iraq now.

This is not a valid approach to oversight. By refusing to discuss what did or did not happen in Congress under the President and Republicans 2001-2006, the NeoCon's are implicitly asking the world not to raise issues which might cast doubt on the NeoCon position.

The only reason the NeoCons still have a seat at the table is that they're persuading America that no one is allowed to openly discuss the NeoCon failures going into the 2007 Presidential surge decision for Iraq. How we got into this mess is related to why this mess continues.

More outrageous is the disingenuous argument of the President and NeoCons that "others should present their ideas or alternatives." Those ideas have been provided, and were rejected. DNC Members of Congress while in the minority have raised various deployment, partitioning, and option studies. Biden and Murtha have offered plans.

The NeoCons have a credibility problem with fact finding, oversight, solutions, and plan implementation. Their denial of reality is what contributed to the absurd 2002 pre-invasion planning. The NeoCon's cannot credibly ask anyone to ignore how this President got into this mess in Iraq.

Until the NeoCons get a clear message that they no longer can provide inputs because of their track record of failure, the United States will rely on the same failed people to suggest solutions they will argue cannot be challenged. The NeoCons refuse to confront any history which might remove the NeoCons from the discussion. The burden is on the NeoCons, despite their failures, to prove they should retain a seat at the table.

Until history is confronted, the NeoCons will assert they have a seat at the table they are not entitled. To understand the solutions, those who have bungled the past approach need to be removed from a favored position in the debate; others, who have no track record of bungling, need to take the NeoCon's position. This is what happened during the November 2006 election.

The NeoCons appear to fail to comprehend the voter mandate: They no longer have a basis to assert they have an unquestioned access to the debate; nor a favored position to assert their position. Others have the presumption of competence. The NeoCons have the presumption of incompetence, and have been denied unquestioned access and power to assert their agenda.

They wished this.